Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I have just finished thinking about all my faviroute pianists, and the top 17 along with being dead, are also all early 20th century pianists, I just generally love the style and approach to music that they seem to have, right now listening to Beethoven by Hofmann, but what are your opinions on this era of history of the piano?

#2085746 - 05/20/1312:56 PMRe: Opinions on early 20th Century general style
[Re: im@me]

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 20322
Loc: New York

Agree completely, and I might like the 'more-earlier' pianists even better if we had recordings by them. I don't like every pianist from then, but yeah -- I like a higher proportion from that time than from more recently.

Originally Posted By: JoelW

Their sound was more human in my opinion.

IMO the basic sound is hard to judge because of the recording quality. I'm thinking mostly of dynamic range, phrasing, and treatment of rhythms.

In what way? I assume you don't mean in the quantity of mistakes in their playing, but it was the unfortunate first thought that popped into my head. (And I am not someone who requires a piece to be played perfectly.)

For me, it was their willingness to take risks that many pianists today will not take. I think the immeasurable pressure today to be note-perfect contributes to this, but my perception of that quality of daring to do something different is sorely missed.

I say perception, because really, many of the early 20th century pianists might not have chosen to do things differently, but by way of how their technique developed and how their ear contributed to the then-new music, they may have simply been unable to do it uniformly even if they had wanted to. Perhaps a large portion of this daring has gone the way of the dodo precisely because the music is, for the most part, now very old?

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

Some I don't like much: Hofmann, Paderewski, or any who play with what I would call extreme use of some of the 19th century performance practices that have long since died out.

Don't forget to add guys like Brahms to that list, then - that scoundrel kept arpeggiating chords when not written and kept alive many other "19th century performance practices that have long since died out".

For anyone who on the contrary thinks we might have a thing or two to learn via Brahms and pianists associated with him, enjoy reading this wonderful article by Allan Evans:

IMO the basic sound is hard to judge because of the recording quality. I'm thinking mostly of dynamic range, phrasing, and treatment of rhythms.

It's perhaps worth pointing out that in some cases with REALLY old recordings, musicians were told to play in a more-or-less loud manner with little dynamic fluctuations - that was simply the only way to preserve the sound sometimes. That doesn't go for all recordings, but it's worth mentioning that the recording conditions were different back then.

#2085849 - 05/20/1304:01 PMRe: Opinions on early 20th Century general style
[Re: fnork]

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: fnork

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus

Some I don't like much: Hofmann, Paderewski, or any who play with what I would call extreme use of some of the 19th century performance practices that have long since died out.

Don't forget to add guys like Brahms to that list, then - that scoundrel kept arpeggiating chords when not written and kept alive many other "19th century performance practices that have long since died out".

Lucky for Brahms that he's not still alive or posting recordings on PW.

Just in case he's looking down on us from above: "I really like your music but PLEASE learn how to play all the notes of a chord together. And trim that beard."

I'm not sure if anyone really knows about Brahms' playing. It could be expected that he followed the style of his day to some extent, but to what degree I think is unknown. I think there was probably quite a bit of variance in this area. Even if there are descriptions of his playing, it has been pointed out in books on this style of playing that even first hand descriptions can be unclear/misleading.

I think there was probably quite a bit of variance in this area. Even if there are descriptions of his playing, it has been pointed out in books on this style of playing that even first hand descriptions can be unclear/misleading.

Descriptions of someone's playing can obviously never give a complete picture, but only a fool would say that even if everyone who heard Brahms play pointed out that he arpeggiated chords in his music most of the time and played with his hands not together, it is not enough to make the conclusion that he arpeggiated chords in his music most of the time and played with his hands not together...Which is why I thought he should be added to your list of pianists from this era you wouldn't like too much - of course, along with all the pianists from the Brahms circle that were coached by the man himself and whose recordings are found in the article I posted (Etelka Freund, Friedberg, Ilona Eibenschutz etc). By the way, the thread started out with asking for OPINION on this era in the history of the piano. Your post mentioned a few pianists you liked and a few you didn't like - great way to add to the discussion! The posts prior to yours managed to stay on topic - let's keep it that way?

Quoting Crutchfield from his famous article "Brahms, by those who knew him" (excerpts can be found online):

“Playing Brahms with the hands together is just like playing Bach with lots of pedal and octave doublings.”

And a brief discussion and analysis on Brahms playing and the playing of those in his circle:

"Writers before Crutchfield have concluded that theBrahms recording is of such poor quality as to have nomusical interest. Yet repeated listenings do yield insights, as Crutchfield maintains and as the presentwriter, working from both enhanced and unenhancedversions, can confirm. The sound, though dim, is fullbodied, the performance fiery and bass-rich, which is whatone would expect, given the descriptions we have ofBrahms's piano playing. What is most interesting, ofcourse, is all those things he does which transcend thenotated page: for instance, playing the left hand slightlyahead of the right (this is clearest in the openingphrases), excbpt for strongly accented chords, which aresounded solidly together; smoothing out the dottedrhythm of the melody at bar 126, to add emphasis to theshift to the subdominant; and rushing the arpeggioswhich separate the phrases of the melody (barsl2l-122, etc.). In the final section (bars l41ff.) Brahmsplays the runs at a faster tempo and places his sforzandoaccents on the syncopated notes, rather than on thedownbeats, where they are notated. Of particular interest is the different manner in which he plays each of thesyncopated bars: at bar 144, a slight pause at the end ofthe bar sets up the next phrase; at bar 148, a large pauseoccurs before the syncopated note, and the final chord ofthe bar pushes directly on into the next phrase; at bar156, little extra time is expended; but bar 160 is playedin the broadest manner, with the time made up in theclimactic final run. As Crutchfield notes, the cadence atbar 152 is "tossed off with a fiery snap, faster yet thanthe tempo of the runs"; for the closing cadence, Brahmsbroadens the tempo considerably, but quickens it againfor the final dominant-tonic motion.The extant recordings of Brahms works performedby his contemporaries are the subject of the rest ofCrutchfield's perceptive and iiluminating article. Thelist of artists and recordings is longer than many perhaps have realized. Crutchfield discusses additional performances of Hungarian Dances, in Joachim's violin arrangements, by .foseph .|oachim himself (including a performance of the G-minor Dance substantially different from Brahms's rendition), as well as by LeopoldAuer and Arnold Ros6. (Auer knew Brahms in Hamburg in the lB60s; the Ros6 String Quarret gave rhe Viennese premidres of Brahms's second string quintet andclarinet quintet.) The most important lesson to belearned here is the expressive use of portamento and vibrato, a topic discussed by Crutchfield and treated byJon Finson in his recent article on "Performing Practicein the Late Nineteenth Century, with Special Referenceto the Music of Brahms" (The Musical Quarterly 70[984]: 457-475). Also assessEd by Crutchfield are performances of Brahms's piano music by Ilona Eibenschtitz, the student of Clara Schumann who premidredBrahms's Clavierstiiche, Opp. ll8 and ll9 in London in1894, by Carl Friedberg, who coached with the composer and championed his piano music, by EtelkaFreund, who as a young girl played for Brahms, and byAdelina de Lara, another Clara Schumann student whoheard Brahms perform his Op. 4 Scherzo and later recorded it herself. Rounding out the list are a pair ofsingers-Gustav Walter, who took part in the premidresof Rinaldo and the first book of Liebeslieder Walzer andpresented many of Brahms's solo songs for the firsttime, and for whom the spirited tenor part of the Zigeunerlied,er was written. and the Dutch bass Anton Sistermans, who premidred the Four Serious Songs in November 1896. (For the titles of individual worksrecorded, see the discography at the end of this article.Crutchfield also mentions, but does not discuss, ArturNikisch's service as accompanist to Elena Gerhardt inBrahms songs. To Crutchfield's list of artists might beadded Eugen d'Albert, who performed Brahms'pianoconcerti with the composer on the podium and who recorded the B-minor Capriccio, Op. 76 No. 2. The pianist Fanny Davies, who premidred the Intermezzi, Op.ll7, the baritone George Henschel, a close associate ofBrahms in the 1870s, and the violinist Marie SoldatRoeger, a favorite of Brahms and the first woman toperform Brahms's violin concerto, also made recordings, but none of Brahms compositions. According toCrutchfield, the recordings known to have been madeby the baritone Julius Stockhausen, including one ofBrahms's famous WiegenLied, have never been located.)The performances vary in quality-some were madeby artists well advanced in age and diminished in technique-but all are instructive in one way or another.Crutchfield's assessrnents draw out the best from eachperformance, building a convincing case for studyingthese historic recordings. Of the pianists, the most delightful and engaging is surely Ilona Eibenschtitz. Although her tempi for Brahms's late piano pieces set newspeed records-her quick tempi were the subject ofcomment in her own day-her 1903 renditions of thesecond and fifteenth of Brahms's Op. 39 Waltzes remainunsurpassed for elegance and charm. After hearing thetranslucent filigrees of rolled chords which she adds tofill out her rallentandi, it is hard to imagine these piecesperformed in any other way."

While there are many pianists from that area who were amazing, I have found myself listening to just as many younger pianists. There is more cases of improvisation, risk taking, in the older generations of pianists, but I still hear a wide variety in recordings I hear now.

I used to feel that pianists now just all sounded the same, until I started listening. What is true though, I feel we are a bit saturated with pianists, many of them with the same level of technique as older generations, and with competitions more rampant, it is possible to hear many more technical, dry performances(one can be objective about how many notes were hit).

Many of my favorite pianists come from the heels of legends(though I love Horowitz, Rubinstein, etc.) My favorite pianists are those like Barenboim, Hough, and Perahia, who show immense ammount of control and thought into their music. With great natural rhythms. I also greatly enjoy hearing Lief-Ove Andsnes or Evgeny Kissin. All their recordings are very unique to my ear. The same can be said of many "nameless" pianists I have gotten to see over the years(it is easy when you live in Indiana).

In what way? I assume you don't mean in the quantity of mistakes in their playing, but it was the unfortunate first thought that popped into my head. (And I am not someone who requires a piece to be played perfectly.)

For me, it was their willingness to take risks that many pianists today will not take. I think the immeasurable pressure today to be note-perfect contributes to this, but my perception of that quality of daring to do something different is sorely missed.

I think this is very true, and also...the whole issue with being able to reproduce a recording, a video, anything from the past, to bring it to life again - it was just being introduced back then. I'm sure the fact that this is so natural for us today and so new to people back then affects a lot - many musicians would comment on how strange it was hearing themselves play, noticing performance manners that they didn't think they had, etc.

#2086273 - 05/21/1301:59 PMRe: Opinions on early 20th Century general style
[Re: fnork]

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: fnork

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus

I think there was probably quite a bit of variance in this area. Even if there are descriptions of his playing, it has been pointed out in books on this style of playing that even first hand descriptions can be unclear/misleading.

Descriptions of someone's playing can obviously never give a complete picture, but only a fool would say that even if everyone who heard Brahms play pointed out that he arpeggiated chords in his music most of the time and played with his hands not together, it is not enough to make the conclusion that he arpeggiated chords in his music most of the time and played with his hands not together...Which is why I thought he should be added to your list of pianists from this era you wouldn't like too much.

I was simply repeating what was said in Off the Record:Performance Practices in Romantic Piano Playing which is one of the most detailed books on the subject.

Originally Posted By: fnork

By the way, the thread started out with asking for OPINION on this era in the history of the piano. Your post mentioned a few pianists you liked and a few you didn't like - great way to add to the discussion! The posts prior to yours managed to stay on topic - let's keep it that way?

How you could not think what I said was an opinion is beyond me. Perhaps, you thought it was factual??

The very first post mentioned a pianist that the OP liked. I was simply indicating that, for me, it's not a black and white issue about pianists of that time.

How you could not think what I said was an opinion is beyond me. Perhaps, you thought it was factual??

Excellent way of misunderstanding my words! There's quite a difference between expressing an opinion as a meaningful observation relevant to the topic that could be discussed further (as the two replies prior to yours did) and just blatantly name a few pianists one likes and doesn't like. The former adds something to the discussion - the latter, well...

#2086319 - 05/21/1303:19 PMRe: Opinions on early 20th Century general style
[Re: fnork]

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: fnork

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus

How you could not think what I said was an opinion is beyond me. Perhaps, you thought it was factual??

Excellent way of misunderstanding my words! There's quite a difference between expressing an opinion as a meaningful observation relevant to the topic that could be discussed further (as the two replies prior to yours did) and just blatantly name a few pianists one likes and doesn't like. The former adds something to the discussion - the latter, well...

...And that would, of course, depend on one's idea of "meaningful" or "adding to the discussion". My post certainly could be discussed further by someone asking why I liked or disliked the pianists on my lists.

I'd also point your comment about my post clearly does not add to the discussion.